That the Senate erupted because of the remarks by the Chief Justice of Pakistan was perhaps inevitable, for it was too much to expect public representatives to eschew comment on what appeared as a criticism of them. The Senate’s criticism of the remarks by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Justice Umar Ata Bandial, was met by a clarification by the Attorney General backed by the Law Minister. This in turn was roundly criticised by some Senators, who wondered why the clarification had to come from the Attorney General, and not from the Supreme Court itself, perhaps through its Registrar. The episode showed the dangers of violating the prohibition by the Constitution of Parliament discussing the judiciary, including the conduct of the judiciary.
It was perhaps naive to expect all members of Parliament to ignore what the CJP said. As the CJP’s remarks seemed to indicate that the PTI was about to get the relief it wanted, and have the NAB law restored, it was too much to ask politicians to ignore the partisan angle. The CJP should also not have ignored that the judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, is suspected by many of going easy on the PTI. However, the CJP should have kept in mind the maxim that judges should only be heard through their judgements, and they should allow those judgements speak for themselves. There is nothing wrong with obiter dicta, remarks which are made from the bench, as judges must be able to ask lawyers arguing before them to clarify questions on their minds, but judges must be careful in this respect, and must express themselves fully in their written judgements.
The present episode has got a background, but it should have been avoided, had two pillars of the state, the judicial and the legislative, both remained within their limits. There is no real way of making either do so. If a presiding officer allows a member to bring up a subject, there is nothing to stop him from doing so. If a judge chooses to say something controversial while sitting on the bench, there is equally nothing to stop him. However, both are subject to the same court, that of public opinion. Neither should forget that that is the ultimstre court they must answer to.
